PRADEEP AND CO Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is obtained by the petitioner for quashing an order imposing penalty and confiscation of a motor car under the Customs Act, 1962 (referred to herein as the Act).

(2.) The petitioner who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle (Ambassador car) registration No. W. B. F. 8610 under a hire purchase agreement of June 16, 1968 (sic) agreed to let on hire to the respondent No. 5 on payment of certain monthly instalments with option to the hirer to purchase the car in instalments of a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- with a condition inter alia to terminate the agreement and to recover possession of the car in case of default in payment of instalment. On or about April 9, 1967, this car was seized for carrying smuggled goods containing about 98 Kgs. of Cinnamon at Barasat. Ultimately, an adjudication proceeding was started by the Customs Authorities.

(3.) On or about 4th April'. 1969, the petitioner filed a suit No. 818 of 1969 in the Original Side of this Court for a declaration that he was owner of the car and for recovery of possession, -- alternatively for a decree of Rupees 15,000/- being the market value of the car against respondents Nos. 5 and 6. In this suit a Receiver was appointed but upon the application of the petitioner a further order was made on May 15, 1970 which inter alia authorised the Receiver to take possession of the car only if the Customs should release it. It is alleged that although the Customs Authorities were not parties in this suit, they were duly intimated by the petitioner and they also took inspection through their Solicitors of records. Thus in spite of having knowledge that the petitioner was the owner of the car the authorities without giving any notice to the petitioner completed the adjudication proceeding and passed an order on August 18, 1970, imposing a fine of Rs. 4,000/-and also confiscated the car with an option to the owner to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 4,000/- within a month from the date of the order. That is how, in short, the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.